Guests:

Tags:

Comments [21]

robert
from washington dc

To bad reality doesn't match the computer models. There is no major climate change.http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html

What you are stating is that you don't trust institutions on the matter of global warming (that causes climate change), including the US political system and the scientific community and virtually ALL of their groups and associations.

That's fine, don't trust climate scientists and climate science, and an especially don't trust politicians with their designs on using climate change as tool for "political control."

Yet at bottom the conversation has ALWAYS been "about curbing pollution through the application of existing technology and the development of new techniques and technologies," which of course includes excessive emissions of greenhouse gases as even the US Supreme court acknowledges.

All of the "blow for blow" claims you list for climate change above have been accounted for and are insufficient to explain the acceleration in warming since the Industrial Revolution.

The scientific method allows for every point to be scrutinized, reproduced and tested, and if it fails then it cannot stand. This is basis of climate science with regards to the anthropogenic origins of climate change. My point is that you and every other skeptic have forever to refute the clear evidence on anthropogenic climate change and neither you – nor any of the few skeptical scientists/experts – have shaken the underlying science.

So go ahead; don't trust and talk politics all you want, but what climate change presents is a matter of humans changing our environment in a way that increases the likelihood of harm and hardship. This situation was largely our doing and we now need solutions to help mitigate and adapt to the negative physical reality we have created.

Amalgam, the article which I do not believe posted to be able to open simply stated that the economy basically contracted as a result of the extremely cold winter. I thought that Amy would find that interesting in her attempt at defining "normal".

Whether it be axis tilt, cosmic rays (which by the way have been scientifically established as being the main driver in the formation of cloud cover in our atmosphere which has a direct effect on temperature is just forgotten about and dismissed by most. Look it up.), CO2 proceeding or preceding temperature change, geo engineering, El Nino, La Nina, cow flatulence, chemtrails, whether climate readings have been accurately recorded or replaced with computer model information, whether "scientists" have conspired to skew data to closer match projections, etc, etc.

As you can see I can go blow for blow with you on the subject and what we will really be accomplishing is just creating a confusing conversation and that in the end may well be the desired effect.

What has been created is a conversation by politically allied scientists and politicians who participate in a now 3rd of a trillion dollar environmental / "climate change" (what ever the flavor of the moment terminology is today depending on its perceived effectiveness is) industry. That Amalgam is a recipe not for objective science but political agenda which translates into political control.

So if the conversation is about curbing pollution through the application of existing technology and the development of new techniques and technologies to that end, I say YES.

But if you are asking me to trust what now has become the insistence of our politicians (think about that) I have to say NO.

The first rule of politics, and make no mistake about it that's what we are talking about here: It must be default assumed that anything an empowerd politician, aspiring politician or any government says must be assumed to be a lie and through your own due diligence walk it back to where you can reasonably establish truth to be.

That Amalgam is something everyone needs to understand on this subject and many, many more.

@ cotour - What does your article have to do with the climate or physical sciences?

There's no need to pray to a god (unless you would like to); observation is fine.

1) The "greening" of the Sahara can be attributed to fossil fuel combustion and their resultant greenhouse gas emissions, which - as you might note - is anthropogenic in nature. (ihttp://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/claussenmartin/publications/claussen_al_africa-hotspot_igbp_02.pdf)

Moreover, ground cover (in case anthropogenic) is the most important driver, and thus vegetation brought about by groundwater pumping for irrigation will have even greater impact, which is what is currently happening today. (FYI: The past period of Saharan greening - about 11,000 years ago - was likely caused by a "wobble" in the earth's axis, so yes, greening periods have happened in the Sahara. [http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/green-sahara-african-humid-periods-paced-by-82884405])

2) What's "normal," is not the question since climate has changed over time (your right about that). The question is what is the increase of global temperatures and how do they correspond to greenhouse gas emissions, which ice cores indeed tipped us off to. (They've accelerated and now leveled off due to deep ocean uptake of heat: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf.) Do you understand (not believe) that greenhouse gas emissions cause the greenhouse effect?

Read this article from today about our economy and plug it into your reality. In addition, there has been zero average temperature increase over the past 18 years or so as established by actual measured scientific evidence. You are familiar with actual scientific measurement and evidence, right?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101787838

Subjective emotion and inferred results are not the basis for science, that is called a political agenda. An agenda to control. And what you personally feel about any subject does not necessarily make it so. It might make you feel good, but it does not necessarily make it true.

You have been successfully absorbed and adapted, you have been Baptized into your new religion successfully. Pray to your God.

From "anthropogenic global warming" to just "global warming" to "climate change" and finally now to "climate disruption" and the apparent ellimination of humanity from the planet in the coming now aprox. 487 days, according to John Kerry and the French. See a pattern here?

Which is not to say that the mitigation of pollution and the application of existing and new technology is not warranted, it certainly is.

I could go on and on but will end with these questions:

1. Is it normal for the Sahara desert to be tropical or desert. In fact the Sahara desert is in a greening phase for the past 20 years.

2. Since you are in Manhattan, do you know what would have been over your head say 13 to 15 thousand years ago? Yes, that's right, two miles of ice and the sea level would have been 300 feet lower than today.

So first, lets define the word "normal", then lets understand that if words come out of politicans mouth they must be assumed to be lying and the more they insist the more it must be assumed they are lying. There is a direct correlation. Things for you to think about, no?

I thought that some scientists and activists preferred the term "climate change" to "global warming" since the effects of what was a net temperature increase were not always higher temps (cf every time a flake of snow fell or the temperature got unseasonably cold, certain partisan news outlets would cry "where's your global warming now?"). Droughts, more intense megastorms, flooding, colder than normal winters or springs in addition to hotter summers are all part of the effects (predicted and now very real and demonstrable) of climate change as a result of human activity.

So in a way, Frank Luntz may have been helping, even if his attempt was to obfuscate and equivocate. I wonder what alternate terms he has for drought and megastorms? (Persistent sunny-ness, extra-raincoat weather?)

It should be called "global climate disruption." "Climate change" sounds too vague, & "global warming" sounds as if every place on the globe is getting warmer at the same rate, so deniers say it's disproved every time there's a cold snap.

@ Chuzzle - So what's your (and the WSJ's) frictionless, free-market solution to a resurrect the weak globalized economy, which was created US created through Bretton Woods and brought down by the US financial and housing implosion.

Besides your advise on the US economy, tt would be helpful if you could you advise China and the rest of the BRICS on how to boost their slowing economies...

One discussion that you never hear related to climate change is that of how much would be normal even without human contributions. The earth goes through cyclical "ice ages" and warming ages, and we happen to be in a warming trend, even aside from human contributions to CO2. How much is related to natural, vs unnatural causes would be very difficult to ascertain withouth serious study. In a scientific sense there is no real "proof" of human causes climate change. Ugh I clicked 3 times and my comment isn't posting - so I apologize about any repeat posts.

One discussion that you never hear related to climate change is that of how much would be normal even without human contributions. The earth goes through cyclical "ice ages" and warming ages, and we happen to be in a warming trend, even aside from human contributions to CO2. How much is related to natural, vs unnatural causes would be very difficult to ascertain withouth serious study. In a scientific sense there is no real "proof" of human causes climate change.

One discussion that you never hear related to climate change is that of how much would be normal even without human contributions. The earth goes through cyclical "ice ages" and warming ages, and we happen to be in a warming trend, even aside from human contributions to CO2. How much is related to natural, vs unnatural causes would be very difficult to ascertain withouth serious study. In a scientific sense there is no real "proof" of human causes climate change.

It was long known that Christie took the ARC Tunnel money and used it towards the Pulaski Skyway construction, which is state-owned and not under the the Port Authority's control. The memos are just confirmation of how, for political purposes ("anti-tax Republican"), Christie wanted to improperly funnel federal funds through the Port Authority to fix the Pulaski. The bridge definitely needs fixed, but again, it's a bait-and-switch on NECESSARY infrastructure repairs/upgrades. The long-proposed public-private Infrastructure Bank must happen, yet it won't...

Show Archive

Feeds

WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820 are New York's flagship public radio
stations, broadcasting the finest programs from NPR, PRI and American Public Media, as well as a wide range of award-winning local
programming. WNYC is a division of
New York Public Radio.